Transfer Assets now to prevent claim on will.

GoldenOldy

Flugelhorn…..Yes, she is legally qualified.she maintained that any property transferred into joint names may be bought back into the mix, if challenged. It was a really long meeting though,so asMoisola mentioned , I shall double check, but i am fairly certain i heard correctly.

GoldenOldy

Just found this on a solicitors website…thorntonjones.co.uk

 The definition of a deceased person's net estate for the purposes of the 1975 Act is different to that used for 'normal' probate matters. Under the 1975 Act it is possible to ask the Court to consider any jointly owned property (such as a property held as joint tenants, which would ordinarily pass via the rules of survivorship under 'normal' probate) and/or assets that are nominated (such as a life insurance policy, a pension or a death in service payment, which would ordinarily pass to the nominated person(s) under 'normal' probate). Ultimately, all parties and the Court, need to be satisfied that any potential award is capable of being met by the net estate, and the net estate is sufficient to withstand such an award.

Keep_pedalling

I think you are worrying unessasarilty, whatever is possible legally I bet you can’t find a single case where someone has made a successful claim against jointly held property. If this was a recent marrage and a recent estrangement then I might be concerned but you have been married 38 years and your son has not been financially dependant on you for decades, so any challenge has no chance of succeeding.

There is more danger in you transferring everything to your wife after which she dies first. 

in_my_wellies

Someone I know was in a similar situation. The solicitor advised him to leave the estranged child a nominal £50 and a worthless but 'sentimental' vase in his will so that said child couldn't challenge the will by arguing that he had been mistakenly left out. 
He bought a vase from a car boot sale for 20p 

Marcon

in_my_wellies said:

Someone I know was in a similar situation. The solicitor advised him to leave the estranged child a nominal £50 and a worthless but 'sentimental' vase in his will so that said child couldn't challenge the will by arguing that he had been mistakenly left out. 
He bought a vase from a car boot sale for 20p 

Opinions differ on the wisdom of such a move. There seems to be more of a consensus about leaving some sort of side letter setting out exactly why someone has not been left anything in the will. In either case, asking your solicitor for their views would make a lot of sense.

Alderbank

Marcon said:

in_my_wellies said:

Someone I know was in a similar situation. The solicitor advised him to leave the estranged child a nominal £50 and a worthless but 'sentimental' vase in his will so that said child couldn't challenge the will by arguing that he had been mistakenly left out. 
He bought a vase from a car boot sale for 20p 

Opinions differ on the wisdom of such a move. There seems to be more of a consensus about leaving some sort of side letter setting out exactly why someone has not been left anything in the will. In either case, asking your solicitor for their views would make a lot of sense.

if you read the thread the solicitor's views seem to be the cause of the problem.

Username03725

If the adult child is estranged it would seem that he / she has little chance of claiming a share of the estate as a claim of that nature relies on him / her being financially dependent on the deceased at the time of death.

Pensions are distributed at the discretion of the trust but that is largely to avoid long-divorced former spouses being able to claim the pension ahead of the current partner, where the distance in time since the separation amplifies the likelihood of the pension being granted to the current partner.

GoldenOldy

Thankyou for all of your thoughts on the matter.
Its not that I dont want my kid to be happy, its just that after all the hard work my better half's put in , they come first and deserve to be comfortable in their later years.

 I just dont want them struggling to pay for heating whilst my child who decided work was ‘not for them’,and has a result lives largely by the grace of the taxpayer, (and anything they can hustle family for,)  then claims poverty. (Whilst oddly buying a pedigree dog or two!)

GoldenOldy

Username03725 said:

If the adult child is estranged it would seem that he / she has little chance of claiming a share of the estate as a claim of that nature relies on him / her being financially dependent on the deceased at the time of death.

Pensions are distributed at the discretion of the trust but that is largely to avoid long-divorced former spouses being able to claim the pension ahead of the current partner, where the distance in time since the separation amplifies the likelihood of the pension being granted to the current partner.

Thats interesting.
They are not financially dependant, but they may claim hardship as claiming multiple benefits.

Thats a bit reassuring I must say.
Its a funny thing, you work all your life and worry about meeting ends meet, then the law makes it possible (even remotely)  to take it away in favour of someone who has deliberately chosen to do nothing.

Flugelhorn

Hardship is not a reason for them to be able to claim against the estate - if they had been hard up for years and you had regularly sent them some money then it would be a very different matter